That there should be a right to bear arms

Mharman(PRO)The idea is to protect from an evil government. And crime overall goes down when there are guns, because law-abiding citizens can protect themselves.Return To Top | Posted:

2018-01-29 01:06:42

| Speak RoundZafar mahmood(CON)There should not be any right to bear arms, I agree that there should be an option to bear arm but it should be regularized.The argument that protection should not be left to state as it itself can turn evil sounds impressive but it is self contradictory as there in not need of a right to wield a weapon if sustain-er of right itself is evil or inefficient ( Nobody need a right to wield an gun during war or conflict).

India is not a good comparison. First, although India has stricter gun laws than he US, they are not enforced as much as the US, giving many the freedom to have guns; however, most citizens don't own guns even if they know they can get away with it. Second, because of this poor enforcement, the majority of crimes in India go unreported, so there's actually a higher estimated crime rate in India than the US.

http://www.citizen-news.org/2009/09/human-rights-watch-report-broken-system.htmlReturn To Top | Posted:

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment

ItsYaBoidisappointing argument. there wasn't a lot of key arguments that the pro could have made and neither side offered a very reliable argument which proved either case. the affirmative didn't really refute or make any new claims and didn't really respond well to the neg arg so neg should win

Posted 2018-02-27 21:45:00

Zafar mahmoodThese laws matter when people are not sure about killing as easy procurement of arms make it easy for them.Look at mentally ill who go on shooting spree the lack of gun law make it easy for them.

Posted 2018-02-05 11:46:56

someonewhomregertsTerrorist's are going to get weapons anyways, and will kill and maim and murder people no matter what gun laws there are people will kill people unless they can defend themselves. Gun laws don't matter to people who truly will go far enough to attack people with the intent to murder.

Posted 2018-02-02 05:39:23

The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

Judge: nzlockieTOP JUDGEWin awarded to: Zafar mahmoodReasoning: PRO opened with two points. Firstly, the Right to bear Arms exists because citizens may need to defend themselves against Governments. Secondly, More Guns equals less crime.

CON countered the first point by saying that in the event that a Government goes bad, the Citizens can simply break the law, and bear arms anyway. The obvious rebuttal to this would have been for PRO to question the availability of these guns, but PRO didn't offer any rebuttal, so the point stands in CON's favour.
CON countered the second point by claiming that India has stricter gun control than the US, and yet the Crime stats were lower. This was an incredibly weak point and not well supported, but there was some evidence for the lower crime stat, and since PRO conceded the point that India had stricter gun laws, the point stands as rebutted.

The final argumentative rounds were waived, as was CON's reply speech.
PRO had the final round as a reply speech, but instead gave us new information, attempting to rebut CON's last argumentative round. I'm not sure it would have been enough, but as it turns out I have to disregard it anyway, since CON has no opportunity to contest the new information.

The win therefore goes to CON.

Feedback: BOTH SIDES: You need to make a more substantive case. Flesh out the ideas, make sure they are communicated clearly.
For example, PRO - in the first round you issued a statement on WHY the right to bear arms exists. By doing this, you're only inferring that this reason is valid. It's stronger if you come out and SAY that the reason is valid. It's stronger again if you actually back that up with some historical examples.

Make sure your sources actually support your case/Cross check your opponent's sources!
Both cited sources were pretty weak. CON's evidence showed that the crime rate in India was lower than the US, but didn't link it to gun ownership. For all I know, 90% of the Indian population owns a gun. Gun Control laws don't mean that you can't own one, only that it's more regulated to do so. If PRO had made this point, he would have negated CON's source.
PRO's evidence was supposed to show that Gun laws were not being enforced, but instead showed that India's Police Force was generally less effective than it could be, for a variety of reasons. It literally didn't even mention the word GUN anywhere in there. CON had no opportunity to contest it, but if they had, then that would have easily rebutted that source.

Finally, make use of your reply speech properly. The Reply Speech is an opportunity to sum up your side's case and explain why you think you won. Don't introduce new information here, it will almost always be disregarded as your opponent has no opportunity to contest it.
And if you're going to introduce new information in the last round, you might as well make it a doozy.
Say something like, "Also, in 2017 a survey was taken of the entire world population in which which 98.7% of them responded that they would be strongly in favour of a right to bear arms. And Warren Buffet, who is a huge Gun Nut legally contracted himself to issue $1 Million USD to every person who owned a gun. And all the criminals in the world promised to not commit crimes anymore but to invest their million dollars wisely and live off the interest."

what do you have to lose? 1 user rated this judgement as biased4 users rated this judgement as constructive

Feedback: His opponent was an idiot.4 users rated this judgement as a vote bomb

0 comments on this judgement

2018-03-06 00:10:17

Judge: GarretWin awarded to: MharmanReasoning: Mharman won this debate. Mharman deconstructed Zafar's only argument while sustaining his own. Zafar had forfeited a round. Zafar's grammar has also been horrible. For example, when Zafar said "Nobody need a right", he was supposed to have made said "needs" instead of "need". Zafar stated that "it [the fact that crime will lessen/] is self contradictory as there", "self contradictory" should be hyphenated, becoming "self-contradictory".1 user rated this judgement as biased1 user rated this judgement as good